Court No. - 65

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39809 of 2022

Applicant :- Sumitra And Another

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Adeel Ahmad Khan

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for

the opposite party No. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and

perused the record.

By means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the

applicants have challenged the cognizance /summoning order

dated 30.5.2019 and charge sheet No. 99/2019 dated 3.5.2019

as well as entire proceedings of Special Session Case No. 173

of 2019 (State vs. Sumitra and another) arising out of Case

Crime No. 79 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 504 IPC

and Section ¾ and 16/17 of Protection of Children from Sexual

offences Act, 2012, P.S. Kothibhar, District- Maharajganj,

pending in the court of Special Judge/Exclusive Court, POCSO

Act, Maharajganj.

Brief facts giving rise to this application are that the first

information report has been lodged by Mamta Chaurasia against

the applicants on 25.3.2019 stating therein that on 23.3.2019,

her daughter Suchita Chaurasia, who is a student of Class-VI

has been illegally enticed by the applicant No. 2- Arvind

Chaudhary and when she had gone to enquire about her

daughter then Sumitra, mother of Arvind hurled abuses and has

detained her minor daughter. On the basis of said allegation, the

first information report has been registered vide Case Crime

No. 79 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 504 IPC and 16/17 of

POCSO Act.

After lodging of the FIR, the police thoroughly investigated the

matter and after recording the statement of the witnesses and

the relevant material regarding the age of the victim concluded

the investigation and submitted the charge sheet against the

applicant No. 1- Sumitra under Sections 363, 366, 504 IPC and

Section 16/17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences

Act whereas submitted the charge sheet against applicant-

Arvind under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act vide Charge

Sheet No. 99 of 2019 dated 3.5.2019. On the basis of said

charge sheet, the competent court has taken cognizance vide

order dated 30.5.2019.

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that during the

pendency of the aforesaid proceedings before the court below,

the parties have also entered into a compromise and, therefore,

in view of the compromise made between the parties, the entire

proceedings be quashed.

Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the aforesaid

prayer and has submitted that offence under Sections 363, 366,

504 IPC, section ¾ and 16/17 of the POCSO Act are grave and

non compoundable offences.He has further drawn the attention

of the Court to the recent decision of the Apex Court in the

case of Daxaben vs. State of Gujarat, 2022 SCC online 936.

He has further stated that heinous or serious crimes, which are

not private in nature and have a serious impact upon society

cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise between the

offender and the complainant and/or the victim. Crimes like

murder, rape, burglary, dacoity are neither private nor civil in

nature. Such crimes are against the society. In no circumstances

can prosecution be quashed on compromise, when the offence

is serious and grave and falls within the ambit of crime against

society. Orders quashing FIRs or complaints relating to grave

and serious offences only on the basis of an agreement with the

complainant would set a dangerous precedence, where

complaints would be lodged for oblique reasons, with a view to

extract money from the accused.

Furthermore, financially strong offenders would go scot free,

even in cases of grave and serious offences such as murder,

rape, bride burning etc. and would render otiose provisions such

as sections 306, 304-B, 498A and 376 IPC and special offence

under POCSO Act, which have